Some of both I guess. Go ahead and use their methods to get the rights you feel are being denied to you. It's gonna be a hard slog regarding the subject your pleading for though.

Not as hard as you might think. The ACLU supports decriminalization, as well as the several federal judges. Those are good people to have on your side in a legal battle. A lot of major news outlets have featured articles about the studies that demonstrate it would lower the crime rate.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I use the terms wife and girlfriend interchageably. This is a habit I've picked up from the Chinese.

I had a drink with a old friend tonight who has worked in China for years, so I asked him about this. He said it's bollocks. Chinese people make exactly the same distinction between wives and girlfriends that we do.

Oh you know one guy who worked in China? That's not confirmation bias at all. His expert opinion far outweighs my own. After all, I've only lived here most of my adult life, speak the language fluently, and have a Chinese wife. That can't compare to your drinking buddy who used to live here.

It does compare. He's lived there longer than you. More importantly, I trust him to tell me the truth. And your 'explanation' makes no sense:

Quote

The Chinese use the words laogong (husband) and laopo (wife) to describe their lover if they are in a committed relationship. They typically begin using them once the relationship is consummated. They refer to each other as husband and wife during their courtship and engagement, long before they are married. These are the same exact words they will continue to use after they are formally married. Tell that to your idiot friend who knows nothing about China.

That's the opposite of the scenario I'm asking you about. Sure, I can understand that engaged couples might use the words 'husband' and 'wife' prematurely, before they're formally married; but do married couples refer to their spouses as 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend', as you did? You haven't answered that at all.

This seems to be rather similar to you saying that you had two adopted children, but on further enquiry it turns out that formally, you don't.

Ding ding ding ding ding! So, are you saying I don't, or formally I don't? Does that mean I lied, or does that perhaps mean that I raise my wife's children as my own but haven't gone through the legal formalities yet? That is the correct use of the word adopted, it does not require a formal or legal action.

And here we go again, another feeble semantic excuse to deny what you said. Adoption is a formal process with legal implications for both parent and child. The opening paragraph of the wiki article on adoption says (my bolding):

Quote

Adoption is a process whereby a person assumes the parenting for another and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents. Unlike guardianship or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is intended to effect a permanent change in status and as such requires societal recognition, either through legal or religious sanction. Historically some societies have enacted specific laws governing adoption where others have tried to achieve adoption through less formal means, notably via contracts that specified inheritance rights and parental responsibilities. Modern systems of adoption, arising in the 20th century, tend to be governed by comprehensive statutes and regulations.

6 to 12 isn't my number; they're the numbers used in the US to define criminal responsibility. And you said that you would like the AoC to be reduced to those levels. Here in Britain, it's 10. That's too young for the AoC, Joe.

I never suggested lowering the age of consent to 6 or even 10.

Yes, you did. You said:

Quote

I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.

In the US, that age is between 6 and 12, depending on the State. So as far as the US is concerned, you think the AoC should be reduced to 6-12. How else can your statement be interpreted?

Quote

You know it's dishonest. Is that the reputation you want to cultivate? My point was that I don't think it's fair that we consider young children adults in some situations, but children in other situations. Did you not get that or are you simply pretending you didn't get that? Set the bar a little higher for yourself, Gnu.

Your insults are tiresome, yet they reflect the weakness of your arguments. When your back's to the wall, you start swearing and insulting your opponents in the hope of unsettling them. I noticed one of your karma messages in support of Jeremy referring to us in these terms:

Quote

Ignore the circle jerking haters.

And I see that a few days previously you down-karma'd Graybeard thus:

Quote

Immature namecalling is not a logical argument.

I'm sure you'll come back with some arcane explanation of why your namecalling is mature namecalling.

Also, 14 is not plucked out of thin air. 2394762936 is plucked out of thin air. 3589 is plucked out of thin air. In fact almost any number plucked out of thin air would be impractical as there are infinite numbers beyond the human life span.

Ayo, minor point. I don't know about your friend or where he was Gnu, but China's a big country with different dialects throughout. Even if your friend is fluent in whatever dialect he learned, it's still going to be one dialect from one region. I don't know anything about China, but I do know that we use words in Puerto Rico that Mexicans and Costa Ricans don't use and vice versa....even though we're all speaking Spanish. Similarly, vocabulary often times varies by age group. As English speakers, there are plenty of men folk, and especially younger men around that will occasionally describe their wives and girlfriends with the same word, wifey. We'll refer to starting a serious relationship as "wifing" our girlfriend and in doing so confer the status of having been "wifed up" on our lady friend. And nah, there are dudes that have been married for a long time that sometimes call their wives their girlfriends. My parents have been married for damn near 40 years and they're still on some teenage love shit, chilling out in pizza parlors and all that. My pops, to this day, occasionally calls my moms his girlfriend.

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't believe or disbelieve him based on that. I'm still waiting for him to tell me why I'm supposed to be afraid of Huma Abedin in Quesi's Ramadan thread.

I can understand why Joe is afraid of Huma Abedin.

But I bet he would like her husband. Joe and the former congressman have a lot in common. Except the former congressman likes them older. He sent this self portrait to a 21 year old. But he also shared some correspondence with at least one 17 year old.

I like this picture because there is clearly such a disconnect between the way a middle aged man who likes young girls sees himself, and they way the objects of his affection must see him.

Ayo, minor point. I don't know about your friend or where he was Gnu, but China's a big country with different dialects throughout. Even if your friend is fluent in whatever dialect he learned, it's still going to be one dialect from one region. I don't know anything about China, but I do know that we use words in Puerto Rico that Mexicans and Costa Ricans don't use and vice versa....even though we're all speaking Spanish. Similarly, vocabulary often times varies by age group. As English speakers, there are plenty of men folk, and especially younger men around that will occasionally describe their wives and girlfriends with the same word, wifey. We'll refer to starting a serious relationship as "wifing" our girlfriend and in doing so confer the status of having been "wifed up" on our lady friend. And nah, there are dudes that have been married for a long time that sometimes call their wives their girlfriends. My parents have been married for damn near 40 years and they're still on some teenage love shit, chilling out in pizza parlors and all that. My pops, to this day, occasionally calls my moms his girlfriend.

And Timo, I do agree with you about the language thing. I mean, some beer ad targeted at the more than one millions Puerto Ricans living in NYC ended up offending a lot of non-boriqua Spanish speakers. It read: EL BORICUA NO COGE EL BUS. COGE LA GUAGUA. And coger and guagua do mean different things in different places, and, well. And one combination of those alternate meanings would be surprisingly appropriate in this thread.

If the wife/girlfriend thing stood alone, it would be easy to dismiss. But it is just one of many, many inconsistencies.

Gnu, instead of going through your long post and explaining yet again how you are completely wrong, I want you to think about what you're doing here.

Do you think your use of reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of debate?Do you think we can't recognize when you've stretched out my statements to their most absurd possible interpretation and then argued against that strawman instead of the clearly intended meaning? I expect more from you.

Do you think you are in any position to dictate my opinions to me?Even after I've clarified my statements repeatedly, you insist that I in fact meant something different. You are free to quote me, but after it's been explained that I didn't mean what you thought, how do you feel you are justified in continuing to disagree with that?

Do you think it's appropriate to cherry pick your definitions to win an argument?For example, most people reach for a dictionary to define a word, you go to Wikipedia. In situations where a word has multiple definitions, and I've used a different one than the one you had in mind, do you think it's accurate to say I was wrong?

Your argument style is at best riddled with fallacies and at worst purely dishonest.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

To be honest Joe. If Gnu is using logical fallacies, then correct them and state exactly why they're a logical fallacy, I think it's better than going out of your way to be rude and insulting. I am afraid that is one of the signs that somebody is losing an argument and I don't think that it helps your case. It's not logical, it's not helpful and it just suggests you're backed in a corner and just swiping to try and get out of it. This may or may not actually be the case, but I'm sure you can understand why name calling and going out of your way to insult can weaken your position. Gnu's probably going to make a point, as you've criticised others for calling you names and yes, when people have done it to you, they've been wrong to do so.

Not standing in support or defence of his stance as I've not followed this thread for a little while and am not up-to-date on the discussion. But that's my two cents as far as name calling goes.

But a couple of points:

Quote from: Joe

I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.

I think here Gnu does make a fair point, regardless of whether or not it's your intention to mean 6-12. You've implied that it's too low, but haven't explicitly stated it. If in the US it were lowered to the age a juvenile could be tried as an adult. Personally I think that's too young to be tried as an adult.

But the issue here I think is puberty. A child might be capable of understanding what's right and wrong before they've completely matured sexually. Puberty in teenagers can be a sexually confusing process and the various feelings and emotions going through the stages can make them vulnerable and could be taken advantage of. Particularly with how hormones may be affected by the process.

To my understanding, this would best place the age between 16 and 18. 18 to be safe. Puberty in girls might be complete in ages 15 to 17 and in boys 16-18. So I think 18 is a good number. This isn't pulled out of thin-air.

In the UK, you're not considered an adult until you're 18. This is when you can drink, watch porn, have sex (though it's 16 if you're under 18), get paid adult wages, can watch any film you like, work wherever you like and get all the benefits and responsibilities of being an adult.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 12:35:57 AM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

I think here Gnu does make a fair point, regardless of whether or not it's your intention to mean 6-12. You've implied that it's too low, but haven't explicitly stated it.

But I HAVE explicitly stated repeatedly that in my opinion 14 should be both the age at which a person can be tried as an adult, and the age of consent. To assume that I meant 6 is a reducto ad absurdum as 6 is the extreme, not the norm. And to continue to assume I meant 6 when I've stated clearly that I did not, and clarified my position, is dishonest.

I'll give you an example:

John: I go to bed pretty late.Jack: So you must go to bed around 5 AM? That's pretty late.John: Oh no I meant more like midnight. I go to bed around midnight.Jack: No, you go to bed at 5 AM, you said so.John: What? No, I go to bed at midnight. Why are you telling me what time I go to bed?Jack: Because you said you go to bed at 5 AM!

A reasonable person would have simply said "Oh, midnight ok. I misunderstood you, I guess we have a different idea of what pretty late means."

« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 12:51:47 AM by joebbowers »

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

To be honest Joe. If Gnu is using logical fallacies, then correct them and state exactly why they're a logical fallacy, I think it's better than going out of your way to be rude and insulting. I am afraid that is one of the signs that somebody is losing an argument and I don't think that it helps your case. It's not logical, it's not helpful and it just suggests you're backed in a corner and just swiping to try and get out of it.

I've already addressed his points, he's simply ignored my responses and repeated them. It's not worth the effort to do it again when he either doesn't understand or doesn't care why he's wrong. I would rather he step back and look at himself a bit, and consider if he really wants to be setting such a low bar for himself. He knows exactly what I'm referring to in those three questions I've asked, and he's already proven that any further effort to explain his mistakes is wasted. I wrote a detailed explaination of how Quesi has been wrong and Gnu dismissed it as argumentum verbosium.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Gnu, instead of going through your long post and explaining yet again how you are completely wrong, I want you to think about what you're doing here.

So that's a dodge, and a red herring.

Quote

Do you think your use of reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of debate?

That's a loaded question; which is a type of fallacy.

Reductio ad absurdum is indeed a valid form of argument, but I haven't used it in this discussion.

Quote

Do you think you are in any position to dictate my opinions to me?Even after I've clarified my statements repeatedly, you insist that I in fact meant something different.

No, you're simply refusing to accept the implications of what you said; you said that the AoC should be reduced to the age of criminal responsbility. That means 14 in China, 10 in the UK, 6-12 in the US and so on.

Quote

Do you think it's appropriate to cherry pick your definitions to win an argument?For example, most people reach for a dictionary to define a word, you go to Wikipedia. In situations where a word has multiple definitions, and I've used a different one than the one you had in mind, do you think it's accurate to say I was wrong?

Yes. Wiki's definitions are more detailed than dictionaries. But to humour you, here are some online dictionary definitions of adopt:

American Heritage: To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.

Macmillan: to take someone else's child into your family and legally make him or her your own child

Cambridge: to take another person's child into your own family and legally look after him or her as your own child

Dictionary.com : to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.

Just as I said: adoption is understood to be a formal legal process.

Quote

Your argument style is at best riddled with fallacies and at worst purely dishonest.

As Seppuku said, feel free to point out any fallacies which you think I'm committing. Merely claiming that I'm making them is insufficient.

And calling me dishonest is uncalled for. I haven't lied in these discussions with you at all; I have no reason to.

Quote

But I HAVE explicitly stated repeatedly that in my opinion 14 should be both the age at which a person can be tried as an adult, and the age of consent.

And when did you first make this clear, Joe? You made your initial claim on June 8th:

I'd also add that it's not impossible to have child pornography on your computer without even knowing it. ... on tumblr, dudes who might not bother to or even have the means to verify the age of all of the young men and/or women pictured in the images or videos they upload. ...I also think that the discussion of distribution could use a little reality check. In the US, something like 70 or 80 percent of teenagers have cell phones, most of which come equipped with digital cameras and the means to send any images or video captured to other mobile devices or to image or video hosting sites. ...

I ran across a site yesterday on tumblr where the young man said he was only 15. He had a disclaimer that all the pictures were of people 18+ and the avatar pic also looked possibly 18+. But if the avatar pic was of himself then he could/would be prosecuted for production and distribution of "child" porn. (Don't write anything yet, read on.)

During the time of Socrates and Aristotle, right around there, people were generally regarded as "sexual beings" starting around the age of twelve or so, I think it was, and age gaps between any two partners weren't given any consideration. It was usual for someone twelve or thirteen years old to be sexually active with people in their thirties, forties, and probably even older than that. I'm not aware of what kind of effect this had on their society per se, but obviously that period of time in ancient Greece produced a lot of advancements and breakthroughs in a variety of scientific fields and also produced a good deal of literature that is still highly regarded today.

An aspect of this no one has addressed, not even Joe, is how much is society guilty of making this into a bigger problem than it is? What I mean is, in a consensual teen/adult relationship how often is the teen traumatized – not by the sex or relationship – but by the way society treats them? (Don't write, read.)

In an 1893 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "children under the age of 7 years could not be guilty of felony, or punished for any capital offense, for within that age the child is conclusively presumed incapable of committing a crime." This is followed in many U.S. states.

I know some states have talked of prosecuting children (pre-teens) as adults but that is unreasonable. Joe wasn't talking about the age when someone can be charged with any crime but with murder (a felony). (Don't write, read.)

Why is it reasonable to assess a 14 year old's ability to reason as an adult on a case by case basis when they have done something wrong, but it is not reasonable to assess a 14 year old's ability to reason as an adult on a case by case basis when it comes to a sexual relationship with an adult, and simply assume the child is the victim and throw the adult in prison?

Because they are having sexual relations with an adult. Regardless of the maturity of the 14-year old, the adult is expected to know and abide by the law, and is required to pay the penalty if they break it anyway. Furthermore, the 14-year old's ability to reason as an adult is not pertinent. The adult is not being punished for the 14-year old's ability to reason or lack thereof, they're being punished because of the decision they made to have sex with a minor. ...To illustrate why this logic is wrong, consider a tobacco store employee who sells cigarettes to this 14-year old who looks 18, because they went based on appearances instead of checking their actual age.

Years ago I was aghast at a news report that a 14-year-old tried and convicted as an adult would not be permitted to get cigarettes in prison because of his age. How is that legal? It's definitely unconstitutional: we are guaranteed a fair trial. If someone is not an adult but is to be tried as an adult they need to have a psychological evaluation to verify they are capable of adult reasoning as of the time of the crime then they need to be legally made an adult with all corresponding rights, privileges and responsibilities. Which means they can smoke and drink and have sex with other adults. If you can't accept that concept you need to rethink trying teens as adults. (Don't write, read.)

(Yes, I know unconstitutional trials happen every year everywhere in the USA. But I'm not the most eloquent speaker, have trouble getting people here to even acknowledge that I wrote something[1], and have psychological issues with public situations – so I have not tried to voice this until now.)

It's like the stop sign analogy I use from time to time. If I come to a four way stop and there are clearly no other cars there, not even a cop, do I still have to stop? Yes. Would I have broken the law if nobody saw me? The answer is yes, even though it's a waste of time to stop for no car, because you understand the law in your own mind. That's really where the law resides. Stop is Stop. Period. No exceptions.

Do you ever jaywalk? That's illegal in most places. We follow the laws that that make sense and promote safety/"decency".[2] The laws against sex with teens existed in the 1970s and 80s but there was little prosecution because of the way society was at that time. It was almost always viewed as sexual education and presented in the movies and TV shows as a male teen getting a sexual education from an older woman. (Don't write, read.)

We know it's illegal, you really don't need to point that out. What I've asked is why we make exceptions and call a child an adult when we can punish someone, but we won't go through the same effort when we can show mercy?

What IS the answer? I want for every girl to have massively more detailed sex education. I want every boy to have massively more detailed sex education. And ALL of these issues need to be addressed to help avoid a lot of misunderstandings.

Indeed.

(We're there.)

We have several big problems colliding here.* Unconstitutional prosecution of teens and possibly children (pre-teens).* One Joe is even guilty of: sloppy terminology – like calling teen porn, "child porn", and referring to people who have had sex with teens as pedophiles, etc.* Lack of comprehensive sex education for all.* Blind adherence to the law.

Things we need to do. The law needs to change because of changes in technology and society.* Comprehensive sex education for all regardless of religion and the (misguided) desires of the parents. When the parents will not take action to insure the health of their child (term used ignoring age here) then the government is justified in acting contrary to the parents' desires. As poor sex education endangers the teen, their sex partner(s)[3] and any possible offspring, one's beliefs can not be validly used to refuse the sex education.* Teen porn needs to be made legal in all aspects if produced voluntarily by teens. This can include sex with adults if the next point is adhered to.* The age of consent needs to be made conditional: sex is okay down to 15 (maybe even 14 or 13 – see next point) if and only if the teen initiates the contact and pursues the adult. Yes, that means no seducing a teen.* The minimum age of consent is also the youngest a teen can be charged with a felony and possibly tried as an adult – after the appropriate legal efforts.* Sex with children (pre-teens) is illegal in all aspects for everyone.* Porn featuring real children (pre-teens) is illegal in all aspects for everyone.* Porn created via drawings, CGI and any other technology is legal even if it depicts what appear to be children (pre-teens) so long as the artificial children (pre-teens) do not closely resemble a real child (pre-teen) the creator has seen.[4]

Does this cover everything? No. Is it a perfect solution? No. Does it require a lot of changes to the law and society? Yes but many of the society changes are already happening. Does this idea supersede the intermediate idea I proposed earlier in the thread? Yes.

Now, calm down and read it again, slowly. Then take a few deep breaths then write.

As an adult, Gnu. As an adult. The article you linked simply shows the age of criminal responsibility. Children as young as 6 can be tried for crimes, but as juveniles, not as adults.

Considering I specifically said "tried as an adult", do you think it was reasonable to assume I meant 6? In other words, do you think 6 accurately represents my argument, or do you think 6 is extending my argument to it's most absurd and unlikely outcome?

Reductio ad absurdum is indeed a valid form of argument, but I haven't used it in this discussion.

That's what I wanted to know. Most people consider it a logical fallacy, myself included. Stretching someone's argument out to include the most extreme and unlikely possibilities is a misrepresentation of the core of their argument, in essence it's a strawman.

No, you're simply refusing to accept the implications of what you said; you said that the AoC should be reduced to the age of criminal responsbility. That means 14 in China, 10 in the UK, 6-12 in the US and so on.

Do you think it's appropriate to cherry pick your definitions to win an argument?For example, most people reach for a dictionary to define a word, you go to Wikipedia. In situations where a word has multiple definitions, and I've used a different one than the one you had in mind, do you think it's accurate to say I was wrong?

Yes. Wiki's definitions are more detailed than dictionaries. But to humour you, here are some online dictionary definitions of adopt:

I gave you a chance to be honest about your cherry picking, and you blew it. You know damn well there are other definitions of adopt that apply to the situation with my wife's daughters. You're forcing me to out you as a liar now.

Quote

American Heritage: To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.

Second definition: To become the owner or caretaker of.I take care of my daughters.

Quote

Dictionary.com : to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.

First definition (As in, the one you skipped over to cherry pick yours.) To choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent.I took them as my own children, I made them my own by assent.

Which I took to be agreement to my premise, but disagreement to my assessent.

The first time you brought up the 6 to 12 figure I didn't respond to it, as it was obviously a reducto ad absurdem that did not respresent my argument, but a ridiculous and false caricature of my argument. Perhaps at that time I should have pointed out to you that you were quoting the wrong numbers (those are not the ages that a minor can be tried as an adult), but I thought it obvious to all that your statement amounted to you putting words in my mouth.

6 to 12 was your number, not mine. <snip> I think 14 is a reasonable age to be considered an adult, and I think that should apply to both sexual consent and accountability for one's actions.

So why didn't say that right from the start, Joe? Why did it take you six weeks for you state your position clearly?

Cynics might suspect that this isn't your true position.

I was clear from the beginning. "I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult." My position has never changed, you've simply been misrepresenting it.

It's like the stop sign analogy I use from time to time. If I come to a four way stop and there are clearly no other cars there, not even a cop, do I still have to stop? Yes. Would I have broken the law if nobody saw me? The answer is yes, even though it's a waste of time to stop for no car, because you understand the law in your own mind. That's really where the law resides. Stop is Stop. Period. No exceptions.

Reductio ad absurdum is indeed a valid form of argument, but I haven't used it in this discussion.

That's what I wanted to know. Most people consider it a logical fallacy, myself included.

That's a baseless assertion; it's also an argumentum ad populum, which is a logical fallacy; you can find it on Wiki's list of fallaciesWiki. What you won't find there is reductio ad absurdum, because it isn't a fallacy.

So reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument; and, I didn't use it. But there is no point in continuing this part of the discussion until you have educated yourself about the meaning of the terms we're using.

As an adult, Gnu. As an adult. The article you linked simply shows the age of criminal responsibility. Children as young as 6 can be tried for crimes, but as juveniles, not as adults.

OK, OK, I think I see where we're getting our wires crossed. Bear in mind I'm familiar with the British system, not with the US.

Here in the UK, children above the age of criminal responsibility (10) can be tried as adults in adult courts - compulsorily for homicide, optionally for other serious crimes.

In the US, it's different; even though the AoCR may be 10 or 12, many States also set a separate minimum age for a juvenile to be tried in the adult courts; from Juvenile CourtWiki

Quote

In New York and North Carolina, however, the minimum age at which all accused persons are charged as adults is 16. In Illinois, Michigan, Texas and eight others the minimum age is 17.

So, if you're saying that New York for example should reduce it's AoC, currently 17, to 16, then I wouldn't argue with that.

Quote

That is but one narrow understanding of the word. I have used it correctly.

You've used it in a highly misleading way.

Quote

Quote

finally, on July 22nd, you produced this figure of 14:So why didn't say that right from the start, Joe? Why did it take you six weeks for you state your position clearly? Cynics might suspect that this isn't your true position.

I was clear from the beginning. "I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult."

No mention of 14 in that statement, which concerns a variable; so how on earth can you claim to have been clear about it from the beginning?

Naturally i jaywalk alot but it was on the road that is not so busy and i felt a lot safer jaywalking than crossing the crosswalk. Why? Because i'm always nearly struck by idiots who can't drive at all! I never had any problem jaywalking. *Raspberry*

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Naturally i jaywalk alot but it was on the road that is not so busy and i felt a lot safer jaywalking than crossing the crosswalk. Why? Because i'm always nearly struck by idiots who can't drive at all! I never had any problem jaywalking. *Raspberry*

I did break the law jaywalking even though no one saw me do it. That's the case with any law. Just because law enforcement isn't there doesn't mean you didn't break it.

Wille Sutton supposedly said in an answer as to why he robbed banks -

"Because that's where the money is."

In looking up who said that (I had forgotten) just now I ran across a fact I didn't know - he claims he never actually said it, it was some reporter who twisted his words. Hmmm, you never know what you'll find out. Anyway, it's an urban legend saying now.

So in answer as to why I jaywalked -

"Because I wanted to cross the street"

I did it because I didn't perceive any harm would be done to children, adults, or animals.I didn't see any cops so I was confident I wouldn't get a ticket.I was willing to risk a fine to get across the street at that time.There were no cars coming.In breaking the law I don't have to turn myself in.I have a back-pocket excuse handy to tell the officer that may get me out of a jaywalking ticket (his choice) or even in court.

None of those excuses would guarantee that if caught I wouldn't get punished, but I weighed the consequences of all factors and acted. That happens with all laws. The laws that people percieve to be useful to society are overwhelmingly obeyed (not by eveyone though), such as stopping at stop lights, no murdering, no arson, no robbery and so on. Those that aren't, are ignored by people and like prohibition, get removed from the books or aren't actively enforced.

No. I already said why you did it: "We follow the laws that that make sense and promote safety/decency." When you explained, you merely confirmed my statements. I asked that question less to get an answer and more to make people think.

Naturally i jaywalk alot but it was on the road that is not so busy and i felt a lot safer jaywalking than crossing the crosswalk. Why? Because i'm always nearly struck by idiots who can't drive at all! I never had any problem jaywalking. *Raspberry*

I used to jaywalk a lot when I had a job downtown because the drivers were only paying attention to other drivers when trying to make their turns. So it was more dangerous for me to cross at the crosswalk than in the middle of the block where I could see the cars coming - never knew who was going to blindly turn the corner and possibly run me down.

So, jaywalking is all anyone got out of the post. Not sure if that's a sign most people have me on their "Ignore" list or that I write so awesomely that no one has a response. Nah, I've got a clue - I don't write that well.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Pedophillia is an abhorant behavior but I don't think euthanasia is the proper course. I used to work a a number of juvenile felons (many sex offenders, a few could've been considered pedos but that's not a label you can technically apply to a juve). Anyway most of them were victims themselves and most had obvious mental "issues" beyond their sexuality yet not so significant that they were in a panel of living normal lives. In any case it's an Illness.

Edit bc typing on an iPhone sucks.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 10:30:04 PM by Garja »

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."